Rear Sight Legality? Need Input
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:35 am
Hello All,
My Williams rear has been giving me trouble with tracking properly. I've found what I believe will be a substantial improvement for a rear sight, but I need input on the legality of it.
According to the rule:
3.1.3. a. Rear sights may be open, receiver, or tang sights, mounted as originally intended. No extended mounts are permitted. The front sights must be a post or bead or if changeable inserts, may use a post or bead insert only. A front sight anti-glare tube, which may be no longer than 1 1/8” to include any attachments and no larger than a 3/4” outside diameter, may be used.
I have a Henry Frontier model, and the rear sight I'm looking at is a rear receiver peep sight designed for lever action rifles, but it would require drilling and tapping the side of the receiver to mount. HOWEVER... the sight requires this to be mounted. Given that it is a receiver peep sight for lever action rifles, it WOULD be mounted as originally intended.
So... by the letter of the rule, it should be legal.... yes?
Thanks for any input!
My Williams rear has been giving me trouble with tracking properly. I've found what I believe will be a substantial improvement for a rear sight, but I need input on the legality of it.
According to the rule:
3.1.3. a. Rear sights may be open, receiver, or tang sights, mounted as originally intended. No extended mounts are permitted. The front sights must be a post or bead or if changeable inserts, may use a post or bead insert only. A front sight anti-glare tube, which may be no longer than 1 1/8” to include any attachments and no larger than a 3/4” outside diameter, may be used.
I have a Henry Frontier model, and the rear sight I'm looking at is a rear receiver peep sight designed for lever action rifles, but it would require drilling and tapping the side of the receiver to mount. HOWEVER... the sight requires this to be mounted. Given that it is a receiver peep sight for lever action rifles, it WOULD be mounted as originally intended.
So... by the letter of the rule, it should be legal.... yes?
Thanks for any input!